The Theological Foundation of the Modern Missionary Movement

By Gery Schmidt

It is an assumed thing among the majority of professing Christians
today that the theological foundation of the modern missionary movement
is of God, and is, therefore, beyond reproach. Indeed, it is considered
by the supporters of missionary enterprise well-nigh sacrilegious for
any to question the Scripturalness of its theology. Yet, since God's
people are commanded to "test the spirits, whether they are of God" (I
John 4:1), the theological foundation of missionism can, claim no immunity
from this process.

The very history of the origins and theology of the modern
missionary movement is little known among Christians today. The name and labors
of William Carey might well be familiar enough to many, but all too
many are ignorant of another individual, contemporary with Carey, whose
views and writings serve as the very foundation of the modern missionary
movement. And this individual was Andrew Fuller. It was Andrew Fuller
who served as the predominant force, in his person and writings, in the
formation of the first modern missionary society, which was officially
begun October 2, 1792, and of which Fuller was the first secretary
until his death in 1815. An important question which arises at this point
concerning these facts is, were the theological views of Andrew Fuller,
which served as the foundation of the modern missionary movement,
Scripturally sound? My answer to this question is an unequivocal no. Indeed,
I am convinced that the entire modern missionary machine is founded
upon both an erroneous soteriology and a false ecclesiology. I proceed now
to demonstrate the facts corroborating these statements.

Shortly before his death Andrew Fuller wrote to Dr. Ryland stating,
"I have preached and written much against the abuse of the
doctrine of grace; but that doctrine is all my salvation and all my desire"
(Works, vol.1, p. 101). In perusing the works of Andrew Fuller,
it is to be feared that he never possessed the true gospel to begin
with. Indeed, in his desire to deal with the supposed abuse of grace,
Fuller did not deal with the so-called abusers, but proceeded to pervert
the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. In his works Fuller manifests error in
many critical doctrines of the Bible, among, which are total depravity,
imputation, substitution, and justification. And it is especially the
atoning work of Christ which Fuller tampers with in an artful and subtle
manner. And it is particularly Fuller's mutilated doctrine of the
atonement which served as both a major impetus to his missionary vision, and
as something of a major turning point in Baptist history. And such
things have not gone unnoticed among Baptist historians. Let us consider
the following examples.

R.G. Torbet notes of Fuller, "To him belongs the credit for doing
much to break down the anti-missionary spirit of hyper-Calvinists" (A
History of The Baptists, p. 80). John Christian adds that "There
was another great force working for the betterment of the Baptist
denomination. It was represented by Andrew Fuller" (A History of the
Baptists, vol.1, p.350). And Armitage states that Fuller put a new phase
upon Calvinism..." (A History of the Baptists, vol. 2, p 584).
H.C. Vedder writes the following:

The change that gradually came over the particular Baptists is not,
to so great an extent, identified with the character and labors of a
single man. It is still true, however, that to the influence of Andrew
Fuller such change is largely due, especially the modification of the
Baptist theology, that was an indispensable prerequisite to effective
preaching of the gospel... Fuller boldly accepted and advocated a doctrine
of the atonement that, until his day, had always been stigmatized as
rank Arminianism, viz., that the atonement of Christ, as to its worth and
dignity, was sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and was not an
offering for the elect alone... this modified Calvinism gradually made
its way among Baptists until it has become well-nigh the only doctrine
known among them (A Short History of the Baptists, pp. 248, 249)

To these quotes I add but two more, the first by Francis Wayland
whose following words concerning the extent of the atonement were
published in 1857:

Within the last fifty years a change has gradually taken place in
the view of a large portion of our brethren ... A change commenced upon
the publication of the writings of Andrew Fuller, especially his 'Gospel
Worthy of All Acceptation' which, in the northern and eastern States,
has become almost universal (Notes On the Principles and Practices of
Baptist Churches, p 18).

The second quote comes from David Benedict, whose following words
concerning Fuller appeared in print in 1860:

This famous man maintained that the atonement of Christ was general
in its nature, but particular in its application, in opposition to our
old divines, who hold that Christ died for the elect only (Fifty
Years Among the Baptists p 135).

Several important facts emerge from the statements of these
historians. First, it is clear that Andrew Fuller did indeed represent a major
influence upon Baptists in his person and writings. Secondly, he
represented a major influence upon Baptists with his views concerning the
atoning work of Christ. Thirdly, Fuller's concept of the atonement was
recognized as a significant deviation from what Particular Baptists
had previously believed concerning this doctrine. What Fuller advocated
is described as "a new phase upon Calvinism," "a change," a
"modification of the Baptist theology," and an "opposition to our old divines."
Indeed, Fuller's view of the atonement was, according to Vedder,
considered "rank Arminianism" by the old Particular Baptists. Fourthly,
Fuller's views of the atonement acted as a leaven among Baptists so that by
the late nineteenth century, it become "well-nigh the only doctrine known
among them." And fifthly, according to Vedder, Fuller's 'modification
of the Baptist theology was 'an indispensable prerequisite to effective
preaching of the gospel." Here we can see a direct connection made
between Fuller's concept of the atonement and his missionary vision. So
much then for the testimonies of these historians; It is time to consider
the works of Andrew Fuller himself.

In coming to examine the works of Andrew Fuller, the extracts which
follow will demonstrate beyond doubt that Fuller did not possess the
true gospel of Jesus Christ. Fuller's works are characterized by
confusion and subtlety. Indeed, pervading much of his theology is an unfounded
and unwarranted paranoia of antinomianism. And it is this fear of
antinomianism, I am convinced, what led Fuller to pervert the good news of
Jesus Christ. We shall consider first some extracts from Fuller's three
sermons on justification. In his first sermon he notes the following:

Yet, to speak of sins as being pardoned before they are repented of,
or even committed, is not only to maintain that on which the Scriptures
are silent, but to contradict the current language of their testimony.
If all our sins, past, present, and to come, were actually forgiven,
either when Christ laid down his -life, or even on our first believing,
why did David speak of 'confessing his transgression," and of God
"forgiving his iniquity?" (Works, vol.1, p. 282).

In these words Fuller manifests several grave errors concerning
salvation. First, Fuller's words represent a denial of the finished work of
Christ on the cross. In fact, Fuller renders Christ's work on the cross
as having accomplished nothing with respect to the forgiveness of the
sins of God's people. It is clear that Fuller believes forgiveness of
sin does not actually transpire until confession and repentance take
place. Such a view denies that any real taking away of sin, or remission,
took place when Christ died (cf. Jn. 1:29; Heb. 9:22). Secondly, since
Fuller essentially declared forgiveness depends upon the confession and
repentance of a sinner, the grace of God is thereby destroyed, and the
dogma of salvation by works to set up in its place. Fuller turns
confession and repentance into meritorious works which earn forgiveness. His
appeal to the words of David are utterly inappropriate and evince he
did not understand justification at all. The confessions the children of
God make respecting their sins relate to their walk with God, and not
to their judicial standing in his sight. The former has reference solely
to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and cannot, therefore, have any
reference to the matter of justification.

Further, godly confession and repentance are the fruits of saving
grace and not the procuring cause of it. Fuller errs greatly in that he
confounds sanctification with justification.

In his third sermon on justification, Fuller states the following:

The acts and deeds of one may affect others, but can in no case,
become actually theirs, or be so transferred as to render that justice
which would otherwise have been of grace. The imputation of our sins to
Christ, and of his righteousness to us, does not consist in a transfer of
either the one or the other, except in their effects (Works,
vol. 1, p. 290).

To this quote two more concerning the same subject, from two letters
written to Dr. Ryland, must be added:

Finally, imputation ought not to be confounded with
transfer ...In its figurative sense as applied to justification, it is
righteousness itself that is imputed, but its effects only are
transferred. So also in respect of sin, sin itself is the object of imputation;
but neither this nor guilt is strictly speaking transferred, for neither
of them is a transferable object. As all that is transferred in the
imputation of righteousness is its beneficial effects, so all that is
transferred in the imputation of is its penal effects... But perhaps, Mr.
B. considers "a real and proper imputation of our sins to
Christ," by which he seems to mean their being literally transferred to him,
as essential to this doctrine; and if so, I acknowledge I do not at
present believe it (Works, vol. 2, pp.705, 706).

In these statements Fuller manifests grave errors concerning
imputation. The most glaring heresy Fuller manifests is his denial of a
literal imputation of both the elects' sin to Christ, and of Christ's
righteousness to the elect. The imputation respecting sin and righteousness
are in Fuller's thinking merely figurative. He makes it quite clear that
neither sin nor righteousness actually becomes the possession of such
to whom they are imputed. And yet Fuller, having denied a literal
imputation of both sin and righteousness, proceeds to argue that there is a
literal imputation (or transfer) of the effects of sin and
righteousness! How a literal imputation of an effect can proceed upon a figurative
imputation of a cause is beyond explanation. Fuller's sentiments lead
inevitably to the conclusion that Christians enter heaven without any
righteousness, and with their sins still intact. Hence, Christians cannot
be said to possess any real justification in the sight of God. A
figurative imputation of sin and righteousness cannot lead to a literal claim
to heaven. Fuller's view of imputation can only lead to a surreal,
shadowy, and phantasmic atonement wherein Christ's work on the cross is
portrayed as no more than a stage-play, and where no real and true
transaction respecting sin and righteousness can be said to have been
accomplished.

The next statements made by Fuller also come from a letter written
to Dr.Ryland:

Were I asked concerning the gospel, when it is introduced into a
country, For whom was it sent? I should answer, if I had respect
only to the revealed word of God.. It is sent for men, not as elect, or
as non-elect, but as sinners. In like manner, concerning the death of
Christ. If I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and
the Son as to its objects as who is to be saved by it, merely
referring to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel
to be adapted to, it was for sinners as sinners...
(Works, vol. 2, PP- 706, 707)

Here Fuller manifests his heretical notions concerning the atonement
and its relationship to missionary endeavor. The foundation for
Fuller's concept of missionary enterprise is an abstract view of the
atonement, one which has no reference to purpose or design. In other words, what
we have here is an indefinite atonement. Directly connected to this
abstract atonement is Fuller's idea that the gospel is to be preached
indiscriminately to all, regardless of election or reprobation. But in both
these points Fuller errs greatly. First, Fuller has no Scriptural
warrant to speak of the atonement irrespective of a design. Indeed, the
atonement of Christ is a design, one which is intended solely for the
salvation of the elect. Texts like Matthew 1:21 leave no doubt concerning
the purpose of the incarnation, and the design was that Jesus "should
save his people from their sins." The sufficiency of the atonement
extends no further than its efficiency. The statement "sufficient for
all, but efficient for the elect" has no Scriptural foundation.

Secondly, Fuller has no Scriptural warrant stating that God's word
declares the gospel is sent unto sinners as sinners, and not as elect or
reprobate. It in true that the good news is to be proclaimed unto
sinners, but it is not true that this is done regardless of election or
reprobation. The fact is, God's word states in no uncertain terms that the
preaching of the good news is aimed at elect sinners. In Acts 2.39
Peter declares that the promise of salvation (cf. 2:21) is restricted to
"as many as the Lord our God will call to himself." The apostle Paul did
not suffer from the illusions of Fuller, for he states in 2 Timothy
2:10 that he endured all he did in his ministry, not for the sake of
anyone and everyone, but "for the sake of the elect." And why was the Lord
Jesus Christ himself only concerned for such who were "weary and
heavy-laden" (cf. Mt 11:28)? Clearly, the reprobate will never be weary and
heavy-laden over their sins. These few examples show forth that true
gospel preaching is discriminately aimed at the elect, and not simply at
sinners as sinners, as Fuller imagines.

We move on next to consider some statements Fuller makes in his
magnum opus, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. In this
work Fuller labors to establish that faith is a duty incumbent upon all,
whether elect or reprobate. In attempting to prove his point, Fuller
establishes the doctrine of salvation by works and virtually denies total
depravity. The following examples suffice to prove this.

Faith in Jesus Christ, even that which is accompanied with
salvation, is there (N.T.- ed.) constantly held up as the duty of all to whom
the gospel is preached ... Though the Gospel, strictly speaking, is not a
law, but a message of pure grace; yet virtually requires
obedience and such an obedience as includes saving faith... If faith in Christ
be the duty of the ungodly, It must of course follow that every sinner,
whatever be his character, is completely warranted to trust in
the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation on of his soul (Works,
vol. 2, pp. 345, 352).

Here again, Fuller is utterly confused concerning the doctrine of
salvation. In advocating his main tenet, namely, that faith is a duty to
be performed, Fuller is guilty of neonomianism. He rightly notes the
gospel is a message of pure grace only to condemn himself in the same
breath arguing it requires obedience. How little Fuller seemed to
understand that obedience is the fruit of grace and not its cause. He
clearly turns faith into a salvation-earning work. Now salvation consists
of many parts such as election, justification, regeneration, faith,
repentance, and so on. And salvation, from beginning to end, is of God and
not man; and it is all of pure grace. Thus, since faith is a part of
salvation, and is therefore of pure grace, how then can it be a duty?

Yet Fuller, in making faith the duty of all, detaches faith from the
doctrine, of salvation, and consequently, removes it from the realm of
grace. Further, in maintaining that every sinner is warranted to trust
in Christ, Fuller evinces that every sinner has the ability to exercise
saving faith, something the Scriptures declare impossible. Only the
elect will ever receive the gift of faith, and thus the reprobate can
never exercise what they not only do not possess, but also what God will
never give to them. Fuller's sentiments represent a denial of total
depravity. Elsewhere in his works, he notes the following concerning total
-depravity- "If by total Mr. B. means unable in every
respect, I grant I do not think man is, in that sense, totally unable to
believe in Christ" (Works, vol. 2, P. 458). Here Fuller flatly
denies total depravity, which denial harmonizes with his concept of faith
being a duty incumbent upon all.

The words of Fuller speak for themselves. His views concerning such
critical doctrines as justification, imputation, the atonement, faith,
and total depravity reveal that his soteriology is entirely bereft of
Scriptural soundness. Indeed, it can only be described as rank
Arminianism. And what is critical for professing Christians to realize is that
the soteriological views of Fuller represent the foundation of the
modern missionary movement. But this is not all. The very ecclesiological
foundation upon which modern missionism began is also erroneous. Fuller,
Carey, and others had no Scriptural warrant for forming a Missionary
Society. The Scriptures declare that the Lord set up but one institution
on earth, namely, his assembly, and that this institution alone has the
authority of God to engage in missionary work. Thus, the final
conclusion resulting from these solemn facts is that the entire modern
missionary machine is founded upon a false theological foundation, which
foundation consists of a false gospel carried out by an unscriptural
parachurch organization.

What then are the solemn implications of these things? Let the
reader consider the following two questions. Can a true convert be the
result of the proclamation of a false gospel? Can a true gospel assembly
result from the same? The answer to both these questions is an obvious no.
Thus, the only conclusion one can arrive at with respect to what the
entire modern missionary movement has accomplished from 1792 until the
present day, is that not one true convert, and consequently, not one true
gospel assembly, has ever resulted from the efforts of modern
missionaries. What then does this mean concerning the countries where modern
missionism has performed its work? It can only mean that there are
countries all over the world filled with converts who are not true converts to
the true gospel, and consequently, that there are multitudes of
churches in the world that are not true gospel churches. Assuredly, a true
gospel assembly cannot result from such who are not true converts. A
staggering conclusion indeed, but one which cannot be avoided. Andrew Fuller
who was so afraid that Baptists would become a "perfect dunghill in
society," is to be credited with having produced a missionary vision based
upon a false gospel and false ecclesiology, which has since his death
filled the world with Baptists who are very respectable in society, but
a perfect dunghill in the sight of Almighty God. These words are not
written lightly or trivially. A corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit,
and thus how can anything good result from Fuller's unscriptural system,
to which all modern missionism owes its descent?

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Mal. 3:6)